Obama Election Manipulation in Swing State Ohio

Pages: 1 2

An Ohio election law that eliminated an unfair advantage enjoyed by the Obama campaign has been struck down by an unelected federal judge under the guise of fairness.

The heavy-handed court ruling probably gives the Obama campaign an edge in the vitally important battleground state.

Acceding to a lawsuit from the Obama campaign, part-time, semi-retired liberal judge Peter C. Economus last week voided provisions of an election reform law enacted in Ohio last year that gave military personnel extra time to vote in person.

Although the U.S. Constitution says nothing about early voting –in-person or otherwise– Economus ruled that Ohio’s new early voting legislation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by giving military personnel an extra three days of in-person early voting. This amounts to a denial of non-soldiers’ “right to participate equally” in elections, wrote Economus, who was named to the post by President Clinton in 1995.

In 2011 Ohio enacted election reforms aimed at reducing long lines and giving poll workers an extra few days to update voter rolls. The new law eliminated in-person early voting on the weekend before Election Day and made the in-person early voting period uniform throughout the state.

The Ohio legislation removed Democrats’ unfair urban voting advantage. This standardization of early in-person voting days throughout Ohio had the effect of taking away three days for early in-person voting before Election Day that voters in only six, densely populated, Obama-leaning counties, had enjoyed.

Instead of all voters in those six Democratic counties being allowed to vote in the final days before Election Day, the new Ohio law allowed only the relatively few registered voters covered by the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act to vote early in-person up until the day before Election Day.

According to conservative commentator Mark Hyman, the Obama campaign’s lawsuit has never been about equal access to the polls. It was calculated to “give a voting advantage to Obama strongholds” in a vote-rich swing state.

In the 2008 general election, in-person early voting was permitted in the five weeks leading up to Election Day. Of Ohio’s 88 counties, 66 voted for Republican John McCain. The other 22 counties voted for Barack Obama.

Only six counties in the state opened their polling places the weekend before Election Day. All six were heavily populated and were carried by Obama. Those counties were Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Lucas, Montgomery and Summit within whose boundaries are the cities of Cleveland, Columbus,Cincinnati, Toledo, Dayton, and Akron, respectively, Hyman notes.

“Ohio is a swing state,” notes Hyman. “Whatever happens there affects us all.”

Pages: 1 2

  • Deerknocker

    I can only hope that independent Ohioans will be incensed by the intrusion of a liberal federal judge in Ohio's right to organize its own elections. The ability of activist federal judges to see a civil rights violation in every attempt by states to hold fair elections within their borders is a compelling argument for the election of a Republican administration that will, as a matter of its political philosophy, elect judges less likely to interfere in matters best handled by the states. Voter ID requirements and voting schedules are basic operational matters and not the stuff of Jim Crow.

    • artbaron

      It seems that the author is saying by " letting other people vote early it gives the dems an advantage- 1 person 1 vote. Wow we really need to make sure that does not cost the republicans .

  • marios

    BHO was criminal organization "Acorn" lawyer. He (our "wonderful" Pres ) was later deprived at all his law certificate for fraud. So no surprise that he and all his accomplicies do whatever up to any violations to keep their power.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kdlmaj Jesse Evans

      Acorn wasn't a criminal organization. Go do your research. It turns out that the things they were accused of by "objective journalists" were 100% flat out lies. An organization that has helped millions ended up being destroyed because some liars with an agenda selectively edited some footage and accompanied it with a completely fabricated story. And here you are celebrating it. Good job.

      • Larry

        Flat out lies? Try convicted and/or under indictment in 32 States.

        Sure doesn't sound like flat out lies to me.

  • http://twitter.com/Jcdavidson37 @Jcdavidson37

    This nation has been overrun with socialists.


      Time for a house cleaning.

      Socialists BACK to Eurabia.

  • AntiSharia

    This will probably be struck down by the appeals court in Cincinnati, Judge Economus's ruling has no basis in law, he may as well have made his ruling wearing an Obama 2012 T-shirt.

  • Howard-Beale

    Q. ~ What is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz & Moochelle Obama's definition of macho?

    A. ~ A man jogging home from his own vasectomy.


    • Glennd1

      Now that is funny. I don't think many people who aren't hard core progressives like Michelle and Deb, how at odds their values and ideology are with what most Americans think of as traditional values. This shows up nowhere more absurdly than in the mythological world of the modern, radical feminist. What most of them do not want to deal with is that the radical ideas they've developed about the nature of sexuality and how it arises have been utterly destroyed by real science. "Gender" (a term that used to refer to grammar) isn't a social construct, it's a biologically driven identity and the behavioral differences between men and women are much more driven by 'nature' than we used to think. Inconveniently for the feminists, all this research was going on while they built their nonsense pedagogy for political purposes, filled with the brio only a victimized, academic leftist with a cause can marshal.

      They are left like fish out of water, gasping for air when confronted with the truth – boys like to play with trucks and girls like to play with dolls (and everything else that goes along with that). The funniest part? Many modern women have neutered husbands who they don't find sexually attractive. They turn to sex toys and "bad boys" and rape fantasies and whatever garbage they read, but utterly miss that they react to a strong, dominant powerful man. It causes consternation for them, but they can't reconcile it all. I'm single at age 50 and dating these women is truly hysterical. I already have a great family and child – I don't need to get married again – so I just take them as they come and watch their confused and conflicted antics with glee.

      Worst part? Many such women deride and berate and dominate their husbands out of some misguided sense of their superiority. Michelle is clearly the Alpha in the Obama relationship. I got divorced ultimately because I had to much self-respect to stay in such a marriage. My ex-wife, like so many women today, was unable to reconcile the tradeoffs that come with living an adult life, and took it out on me. Constant criticism, belittling and worst of all, the withdrawal of affection, were the way in my marriage – and many other guys I know. I finally decided that I'd had it and have never regretted it. It's sad because me ex had to go through another marriage and really harm herself and her next victim before getting a little humility.

      It's funny, her version of reality is that she's been ruined by bad men, lol. I took care of all the financial responsibilities for my daughter, paid all child support and lots more for 14 years, did the weekends and all the running around that a Dad should do (and loved it). But she still treated me like a deadbeat Dad. I totalled up the money I'd given her directly at one point, to try and shake her attitude up – (it was over 240,000 over 14 years, tax free, aside from money I spent on my daughter for health care and other items, which totaled another 190,000) but that didn't affect her. She had to perpetuate the image of herself as a victim, no matter the facts, otherwise, how could she have justified being so cruel to me? I think feminism actually encourages women to objectify us and demean us, and to take the "upper hand". Me, when I see such a woman coming at me (from a long ways off), I head the other direction. If they are really hot, sometimes I just play it the way they want it and then leave them sticky and confused, if you know what I mean…

      • http://www.facebook.com/kdlmaj Jesse Evans

        what's hilarious about this reply is that it starts off with "science has discredited radical feminism!" and then goes on to justify itself with nothing but unscientific, anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately, you have no idea what you're actually talking about. You only see what you want to see, but you clearly don't realize that.

        • JoJoJams

          Jesse, science has discredited it, by showing how "nature" is – male and female – and that it's more "nature" as oppsed to "nurture". He then went on to state his own experiences. Which, by the way, are pretty much what I've experienced as well! That's not to stereotype ALL woman (and men) under his experience, but certainly the majority DO fall in to what he's described. While that personal experience isn't "scientific", he did preface his comment by stating the "science" in the first paragraph. No, he didn't include subnotes, quotes and links – because he's not writing a college dissertation. I'd hazard you're a young guy – and just haven't experienced as much of the world out there as others have.
          It's not a matter of seeing what one wants to see. Who the hell would "want" to see an over-bearing b1tchy and ungrateful wife?!? lmao!

          • JoJoJams

            No, he's merely relating his experience – and from my own personal experiences, he's actually quite accurate. For all the blather, women do NOT like the metrosexual guy – and they DO like the "bad boy" – it's genetic, after all. Look at the chimpanze and their interactions – and we're not that far removed from them. the alpha male gets the gal, and nice guys DO finish last, for the most part. Again, there are always exceptions to the rule – but in general, woman are genetically predisposed to prefer the bad boy. Evolutionarily speaking, the "bad boy" is the one capable of "protection" and "providing". The "bad boy" is exciting – and the nice guy is wimpy and boring. We can't get past our genetics and evolution, son, though it would be nice if we could.

  • Jim_C

    Aren't politics cute, sometimes? You get a guy like Mike Turzai saying outright that their voter ID activism,er, "initiative"–sorry–will deliver their state to Romney–but it's the judge who is "activist."

  • http://www.facebook.com/kdlmaj Jesse Evans

    This is the most ridiculous article I've seen in a LONG time. This isn't news- it's garbage. There was no "unfair urban advantage" for democrats before- it *used* to be that EVERYONE had access to early voting. You know- equal access to the polls? Then, Republicans- as part of a nationwide push to limit access to voting for groups that have historically voted Dem- removed the ability of non-military voters (a group that historically votes Republican) to have access to early voting. The Courts rightly determined that this would disproportionately affect minority voters and that there was overwhelming evidence that the entire purpose of the new changes was to keep those groups from voting. The author of this article is irresponsible and should be banned from political reporting for their not-so-clever distortion and omission of facts.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kdlmaj Jesse Evans

      note: "non-military" voters are more likely to vote dems. My wording was odd, but I meant to point out that military voters tended to vote republican- hence why the changes tried to give them, and only them, access to early voting.

    • artbaron

      Now Jesse we can't have everyone getting out to vote. While Republicans like Paul Ryan can run a marathon in under 3 hours ( he now claims he didn't) democrats take longer to meander their way to the polls. Therefore it is only logical that anything which makes it a certainty that they will get to cast their vote must be heavy handed and just plain un- american

  • amused

    LOL….Vadum is not a "reporter " nor is he a "journalist " . Vadum is a political hack and shill for the Conservatives . Early voting has been around a long time , and any legislation that was made to make it exclusively for the military is UN-AMERICAN , and just a ploy to RESTRICT VOTING . Atleast there's a judge who KNOWS the Constitution ….but of course in Vadum's twisted view , that judge is an "activist " . Just another dirty trick attempted by the Conservatives to restrict voters who they fear may vote against them . Sometimes I wonder WHERE people like Vadum , Klein , Greenfield and Shapiro have been living , for hundreds if not thousands of times when the poles close there are many left waiting on lines that are virtually shut out from voting .The whole notion of this kind of restriction is PYURE CONSERVATIVE BULLSHEEEET .

  • PermReader

    Naive people think that the free choice of leftists is possible. Besides the permanent propaganda the polls frauds is the usual leftists` practice.Leftists do not lose the power easily and there will be many Obama`s administration traps before and during the polls.

  • Schlomotion

    I am shocked. Matt Vadum is attacking the very basis of American government, namely the separation of powers and the power of the President to nominate federal judges and the power of the Senate to confirm them. Mr. Vadum writes "an unelected federal judge" showing yet again his contempt for American government and attacking yet another person who has earned a Juris Doctor decades ago.

  • Asher

    You can bet that there will be every crooked advantage in the book given to this administration…they play dirty to win at our expense.

  • Questions

    Next to Florida, Ohio is THE swing state. If the GOP can't win either, then it must win back Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina; hang onto Missouri; and take the western states of Colorado, Arizona and Nevada from Obama. This is especially imperative because California, now Democrat territory thanks to Hispanics and Asians, has more electoral college votes than ever. This Ohio judge may well cost us the election. Romney needs to go after the swing vote (i.e., the undecided white vote) in Ohio and Florida with full force.

    • Guest

      Prejudice much? You've got it all figured out between the Whites and the Blacks, the Spics and the Chinks the Bananas and the Beaners. No offence to you but this scheming is a perfect example of why the Ununited States of America is such a mess. Selfishness. Greed. Envy. Prejudices.

  • Tanstaafl jw

    It's not who votes, it's who counts the votes.

  • Willow

    Whooeeee! Man, the spin in this article is making me so dizzy I probably won't be able to walk straight for a month.